Keep seams on derived assy

[Anonymous]

Checking this option doesn't appear to do anything when deriving an assy
into a single part. (To WORKAROUND the Parts List) If I do a section thru
this part, shouldn't it show the lines between parts? All I get is one solid
showing. Am I doing something wrong?
Thanx,

--
Dave Hoder
Product Design Engineer
idX Seattle
www.idxcorporation.com

[Anonymous]

> Checking this option doesn't appear to do anything when deriving an assy
> into a single part. (To WORKAROUND the Parts List) If I do a section thru
> this part, shouldn't it show the lines between parts? All I get is one
solid
> showing. Am I doing something wrong?

Dave, I don't recall that it ever did keep INTERNAL seams - it kept
externally visible face/face seams between parts.

G

[Anonymous]

So Gary - anyway this is ever going to happen? The way IV works now, I have
much post weld machining to do on certain assemblies. I can't do it in the
weldment environment, because IV just isn't robust enough. I can't do
revolves, etc. I can make a derived component of my assembly and do the work
I need to do, but when making an .idw of said ass'y, and sectioning that
ass'y, I get only a single piece. In the dialog, it asks if I want to keep
seams between planar faces. What's that mean? It doesn't seem to do
anything. Just another box to check.

If you guys would please make the weldment ass'y environment a lot more
robust (better machining capabilities and other weldment profile besides
just a plain fillet weld - like a j-groove weldment for instance), it would
be useful to my work, and we might finally be able to make IV our go-to
tool. If not that, maybe derived components could be updated to do this as a
work around?

Then again, with the recent controversy and all, maybe it's best to look
elsewhere - which my company is doing.

--
Mike Pelelo
North Sioux City, SD
"There were a lot of things they didn't tell
me when I signed on with this outfit."

"Gary R Smith (Autodesk)" wrote in message
news:0CBE8FB84BA2B2A9B53A643E93798D08@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Checking this option doesn't appear to do anything when deriving an assy
> > into a single part. (To WORKAROUND the Parts List) If I do a section
thru
> > this part, shouldn't it show the lines between parts? All I get is one
> solid
> > showing. Am I doing something wrong?
>
> Dave, I don't recall that it ever did keep INTERNAL seams - it kept
> externally visible face/face seams between parts.
>
> G
>
>

[Anonymous]

Mike....I agree with your frustration with the welding function....very
limited. What I have the most luck with for post weld machining is assembly
features. You don't have to struggle with the welding and can do most of
what you need (except for any revolved features) and the .idw will show each
piece on sections (no welds however). You may already do this now, just
thought I'd mention. Derived parts for post weld machining should only be
necessary if you can accomplish something with the limited assembly
features. Since assembly features I only use derived components for my
skeletal models.
Jim

[Anonymous]

Mike:

I too found the weldment environment to be tantalizing but as yet
incomplete. Completion of this feature by the time my subscription is
due will factor heavily into my decision making when it comes to parting
with my hard earned money.

In the meantime, I too derive an assembly of constituent pieces into a
part (the raw weldment) and post machine it.

I, however, agree with the way the way IV treats the derived part as one
solid. My reasoning is as follows:
1/ My assembly file shows how a number of discrete parts will be
positioned in order to weld them. An idw of this will allow different
hatching for different parts.
2/ Once welded and ready for machining, I now have one chunk of steel.
You can't easily remove one portion, therefor it should be sectioned as one.

My weldment drawings are typically two sheets - the first shows the
assembly (my welding views) with a variety of hatch patterns whereas the
second shows the machining with only one hatch pattern.

Richard


Mike Pelelo wrote:
> So Gary - anyway this is ever going to happen? The way IV works now, I have
> much post weld machining to do on certain assemblies. I can't do it in the
> weldment environment, because IV just isn't robust enough. I can't do
> revolves, etc. I can make a derived component of my assembly and do the work
> I need to do, but when making an .idw of said ass'y, and sectioning that
> ass'y, I get only a single piece. In the dialog, it asks if I want to keep
> seams between planar faces. What's that mean? It doesn't seem to do
> anything. Just another box to check.
>
> If you guys would please make the weldment ass'y environment a lot more
> robust (better machining capabilities and other weldment profile besides
> just a plain fillet weld - like a j-groove weldment for instance), it would
> be useful to my work, and we might finally be able to make IV our go-to
> tool. If not that, maybe derived components could be updated to do this as a
> work around?
>
> Then again, with the recent controversy and all, maybe it's best to look
> elsewhere - which my company is doing.
>
> --
> Mike Pelelo
> North Sioux City, SD
> "There were a lot of things they didn't tell
> me when I signed on with this outfit."

[Anonymous]

Richard, I like the method you describe. Although we have not previously
used multi sheet drawings, we are most certainly going in that direction
very soon, no matter which software we will be using. That will also include
our Autocad drawings. One good reason for this is it will simplify process
sheets in our manufacturing facilities.

I also can agree with your philosophy on a derived assembly being a solid
piece. However, when I make a drawing of a complete hydraulic cylinder
assembly for approval and production, it is (by longtime custom) quarter
sectioned on the barrel assembly of the cylinder - in other words, our
finished cylinder assembly drawing has a cutout section to show the internal
workings. As every barrel assembly has more than one component, we like to
differentiate those pieces by hatching individual pieces in these section
views on our drawing, and they must be machined to completion. I can't do
the work we do the way we do it in the proper order using Inventor and end
up with output that is satisfactory to our needs. If Autodesk would complete
the weldment environment and make it useful, we would be in good shape.

Not all our cylinders are welded - we make lots of tierod types, and these
are not a problem. But as soon as we start into welded styles, we are hosed
with IV.

--
Mike Pelelo
North Sioux City, SD
"There were a lot of things they didn't tell
me when I signed on with this outfit."

"Richard Hinterhoeller" wrote in message
news:3F3B946F.8000803@hfx.eastlink.ca...
> Mike:
>
> I too found the weldment environment to be tantalizing but as yet
> incomplete. Completion of this feature by the time my subscription is
> due will factor heavily into my decision making when it comes to parting
> with my hard earned money.
>
> In the meantime, I too derive an assembly of constituent pieces into a
> part (the raw weldment) and post machine it.
>
> I, however, agree with the way the way IV treats the derived part as one
> solid. My reasoning is as follows:
> 1/ My assembly file shows how a number of discrete parts will be
> positioned in order to weld them. An idw of this will allow different
> hatching for different parts.
> 2/ Once welded and ready for machining, I now have one chunk of steel.
> You can't easily remove one portion, therefor it should be sectioned as
one.
>
> My weldment drawings are typically two sheets - the first shows the
> assembly (my welding views) with a variety of hatch patterns whereas the
> second shows the machining with only one hatch pattern.
>
> Richard

[Anonymous]

Mike:

Do 'Assembly Features' provide enough virtual machining abilities for
your needs?

Richard


Mike Pelelo wrote:
> Richard, I like the method you describe. Although we have not previously
> used multi sheet drawings, we are most certainly going in that direction
> very soon, no matter which software we will be using. That will also include
> our Autocad drawings. One good reason for this is it will simplify process
> sheets in our manufacturing facilities.
>
> I also can agree with your philosophy on a derived assembly being a solid
> piece. However, when I make a drawing of a complete hydraulic cylinder
> assembly for approval and production, it is (by longtime custom) quarter
> sectioned on the barrel assembly of the cylinder - in other words, our
> finished cylinder assembly drawing has a cutout section to show the internal
> workings. As every barrel assembly has more than one component, we like to
> differentiate those pieces by hatching individual pieces in these section
> views on our drawing, and they must be machined to completion. I can't do
> the work we do the way we do it in the proper order using Inventor and end
> up with output that is satisfactory to our needs. If Autodesk would complete
> the weldment environment and make it useful, we would be in good shape.
>
> Not all our cylinders are welded - we make lots of tierod types, and these
> are not a problem. But as soon as we start into welded styles, we are hosed
> with IV.
>
> --
> Mike Pelelo
> North Sioux City, SD
> "There were a lot of things they didn't tell
> me when I signed on with this outfit."

[Anonymous]

Nope - I need revolves, and I need to be able to thread (apart from the hole
feature).

Here's how it works - I model a tube (barrel). It has some machining done on
that part as part of the process (port holes, weld chamfer for the butt
end). I make a butt & tube ass'y using that tube. I weld ports or a valve
block on. Then the tube gets skived - that isn't shown on the ass'y, but it
is a normal, neccessary part of the process. It cleans up any distortion
from the welding and brings the tube to correct i.d. tolerance. Both ends of
the tube must be open to pass the skiving head through. After the skiving
process is done, then we bore out our thread diameter and thread the end
where the gland threads into the cylinder. There is a lead in chamfer of 20
degrees that tapers into the normal i.d. of the tube (on the inside end of
the boring, for seals to be led into the main cylinder i.d.). There may be
some other work on the tube end like a groove for an o-ring. Then the butt
plate or fitting gets welded on the base end after all this inside work gets
done. Weld distortion is not an issue here because it's at the very back end
of the cylinder and no seals pass this area. There are a lot of variations
we use in this processing but this is the gist of what we do.

The bottom line is we make parts a certain way. We then assemble these parts
and after that is done, it is necessary to do additional machining on the
assembled parts that it is not possible to do in the assembly environment of
IV. I can not do the i.d. work on a tube .ipt, because that is not the way
that part will be when it is finished with the primary processing for that
part. We often farm out tube work to some of our outside vendors and I can't
put a feature on a part that is not intended to be there at that point of
the process. So when can I shoe horn that inside work in? I have not come up
with a reasonable solution, short of making 2 .ipt's of the same part - one
as it will be made in production and one as it needs to be at the finish of
an assembly. That is a wash for the bom, and would cause all sorts of other
problems, the least of which would be file management.

--
Mike Pelelo
North Sioux City, SD
"There were a lot of things they didn't tell
me when I signed on with this outfit."

"Richard Hinterhoeller" wrote in message
news:3F3BB1BF.9080304@hfx.eastlink.ca...
> Mike:
>
> Do 'Assembly Features' provide enough virtual machining abilities for
> your needs?
>
> Richard
>
>
> Mike Pelelo wrote:
> > Richard, I like the method you describe. Although we have not previously
> > used multi sheet drawings, we are most certainly going in that direction
> > very soon, no matter which software we will be using. That will also
include
> > our Autocad drawings. One good reason for this is it will simplify
process
> > sheets in our manufacturing facilities.
> >
> > I also can agree with your philosophy on a derived assembly being a
solid
> > piece. However, when I make a drawing of a complete hydraulic cylinder
> > assembly for approval and production, it is (by longtime custom) quarter
> > sectioned on the barrel assembly of the cylinder - in other words, our
> > finished cylinder assembly drawing has a cutout section to show the
internal
> > workings. As every barrel assembly has more than one component, we like
to
> > differentiate those pieces by hatching individual pieces in these
section
> > views on our drawing, and they must be machined to completion. I can't
do
> > the work we do the way we do it in the proper order using Inventor and
end
> > up with output that is satisfactory to our needs. If Autodesk would
complete
> > the weldment environment and make it useful, we would be in good shape.
> >
> > Not all our cylinders are welded - we make lots of tierod types, and
these
> > are not a problem. But as soon as we start into welded styles, we are
hosed
> > with IV.
> >
> > --
> > Mike Pelelo
> > North Sioux City, SD
> > "There were a lot of things they didn't tell
> > me when I signed on with this outfit."
>

[Anonymous]

"Mike Pelelo" wrote in message...
> So Gary - anyway this is ever going to happen?

Hi Mike,

I don't believe there are any current plans to create new seam line
capability within parts derived from assemblies.

I think the question is really: Is the welding environment going to be
enhanced to allow us to do the work we need to do on weldments?

The development team will be working on the assembly feature implementation
so that post-weld maching is more robust. I was asked yesterday if sweeps
and lofts should be considered as priorities in this area and I suggested
that our priorities ought to include:

- revolved cuts
- fillets/rounds
- mirror
- patterns

This would be a good place/time to solicit your opinions on how this should
be prioritized.

G

[Anonymous]

If you have two parts with planar faces, side-by-side touching each other,
with the two faces being coplanar, there will be two concident linear edges.
If you want these edges to show up in the resulting body you need to check
that box.

"Mike Pelelo" wrote in message
news:4BFAD0A5DB5E980D0C1948677289735B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> In the dialog, it asks if I want to keep
> seams between planar faces. What's that mean? It doesn't seem to do
> anything. Just another box to check.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Gary -

1) revolved cuts
2) threading said revolved cuts
2) more robust welds (more than just fillet welds) - we get into some very
difficult areas here as we often weld round stuff crossways to other round
stuff. Tough welds to model.

I am putting a zipped file in CF (butt & tube.zip) - it shows an assembly,
all put together, and includes modeled weldments (did it in 5.3). I'm also
including a derived part of this assembly with the post weld work done to
it. It's got some profiled welds but doesn't have any of the goofy welds I
mentioned above. Might give you and others a glimpse of what I'm trying to
do.


--
Mike Pelelo
North Sioux City, SD
"There were a lot of things they didn't tell
me when I signed on with this outfit."

"Gary R Smith (Autodesk)" wrote in message
news:6DAB09A85B8B41BB36B8C0A711BCE56B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> "Mike Pelelo" wrote in message...
> > So Gary - anyway this is ever going to happen?
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I don't believe there are any current plans to create new seam line
> capability within parts derived from assemblies.
>
> I think the question is really: Is the welding environment going to be
> enhanced to allow us to do the work we need to do on weldments?
>
> The development team will be working on the assembly feature
implementation
> so that post-weld maching is more robust. I was asked yesterday if sweeps
> and lofts should be considered as priorities in this area and I suggested
> that our priorities ought to include:
>
> - revolved cuts
> - fillets/rounds
> - mirror
> - patterns
>
> This would be a good place/time to solicit your opinions on how this
should
> be prioritized.
>
> G
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

How about prioritizing the Parts List so I don't have to go through this in
the first place?

--
Dave Hoder
Product Design Engineer
idX Seattle
www.idxcorporation.com

[Anonymous]

"Mike Pelelo" wrote:

> 3) more robust welds (more than just fillet welds)

Hi Mike,

We are keenly aware of the need for more robust weld modeling. Initially,
the early builds of R6 included gap and groove weld bead modeling however
there were problems involving the correct recovery in drawings. Hopefully we
will see this functionality in a future release.

Gary

[Anonymous]

"Mike Pelelo" wrote

> I am putting a zipped file in CF (butt & tube.zip)

I have pulled your *.zip file and forwarded it to the product design team.

Thanks!

Gary

[Anonymous]

I'd like to add iFeature insertion to the list. I have needed to add NPT
and/or SAE ports to welded assemblies and, right now, this is not possible.
Also, how about the ability to change part face colors (not a big deal, but
would be nice).

Jim

From Gary (Autodesk):
The development team will be working on the assembly feature implementation
so that post-weld maching is more robust. I was asked yesterday if sweeps
and lofts should be considered as priorities in this area and I suggested
that our priorities ought to include:

- revolved cuts
- fillets/rounds
- mirror
- patterns

[Anonymous]

Yep, that's another one I could use in a weldment ass'y (iports, pun
intended).

--
Mike Pelelo
North Sioux City, SD
"There were a lot of things they didn't tell
me when I signed on with this outfit."

"Jim Hagarty" wrote in message
news:1015C47AD153DBB12CDAAC92D4D1664D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I'd like to add iFeature insertion to the list. I have needed to add NPT
> and/or SAE ports to welded assemblies and, right now, this is not
possible.
> Also, how about the ability to change part face colors (not a big deal,
but
> would be nice).
>
> Jim
>
> From Gary (Autodesk):
> The development team will be working on the assembly feature
implementation
> so that post-weld maching is more robust. I was asked yesterday if sweeps
> and lofts should be considered as priorities in this area and I suggested
> that our priorities ought to include:
>
> - revolved cuts
> - fillets/rounds
> - mirror
> - patterns
>
>
>